2 added 82 characters in body
source | link

What's the difference between arbitrarily high probability and certainty?

This question briefly piqued my interest but upon pondering the idea, it quickly occurred to me to be a futile question, as I don't see how you could go anywhere with it. I don't see the advantage nor use of a logic that has no way of expressing necessity. Consider the following argument:

Socrates is a man.  
All men are mortal.  
Therefore, Socrates is (necessarily) mortal.

If you were to explain that without necessity, you would get an expression of probability that would be arbitrarily close to necessity, such as "almost certainly" (in Math) such that they would be functionally the same.

Has necessity really harmed science?

More importantly, as a scientist myself, I also don't see how the use of necessity has harmed science at all; on the contrary, I think it has been a profoundly useful guide in separating fact from fiction so as to arrive as close as we can to the truth. Also, "necessity" is not at odds with "possibility"; I don't see a conflict there at all, and find that science is all about both.

The link between philosophy's popular acceptance and necessity

Given the pragmatic and hypothetical tone of the sciences, may its reliance on necessity help explain the difficulty philosophy has in being heard and taken seriously as a cultural form?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that science's reliance on "necessity" has anything to do with philosophy "being taken seriously as a cultural form". To be a philosopher was once a very respectable position to have. The difficulty is that it has almost always been the province inof the wealthy — if you were of the working class you of coursemore likely had to spend most of your day putting food on the table. YouTo have access to the rich philosophy that came before us, you had to have had the luxury of an education, and even then, the logical mind for it. Philosophy's current position, I would argue, is simply because A) in our modern society, being a philosopher won't get you paid and we tend to greatly value money, and B) the ideas/concepts remain rather obtuse to the layperson. Most people, I'm afraid, do not have the training, discipline of mind, or even willingness to learn philosophy because it will appear to have no practical use to them. I can't see how removing "necessity" from philosophy would change that.

What's the difference between arbitrarily high probability and certainty?

This question briefly piqued my interest but upon pondering the idea, it quickly occurred to me to be a futile question, as I don't see how you could go anywhere with it. I don't see the advantage nor use of a logic that has no way of expressing necessity. Consider the following argument:

Socrates is a man.  
All men are mortal.  
Therefore, Socrates is (necessarily) mortal.

If you were to explain that without necessity, you would get an expression of probability that would be arbitrarily close to necessity, such as "almost certainly" (in Math) such that they would be functionally the same.

Has necessity really harmed science?

More importantly, as a scientist myself, I also don't see how the use of necessity has harmed science at all; on the contrary, I think it has been a profoundly useful guide in separating fact from fiction so as to arrive as close as we can to the truth. Also, "necessity" is not at odds with "possibility"; I don't see a conflict there at all, and find that science is all about both.

The link between philosophy's popular acceptance and necessity

Given the pragmatic and hypothetical tone of the sciences, may its reliance on necessity help explain the difficulty philosophy has in being heard and taken seriously as a cultural form?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that science's reliance on "necessity" has anything to do with philosophy "being taken seriously as a cultural form". To be a philosopher was once a very respectable position to have. The difficulty is that it has almost always been the province in the wealthy — if you were of the working class you of course had to spend most of your day putting food on the table. You had to have had the luxury of an education, and even then, the logical mind for it. Philosophy's current position is simply because in our modern society, being a philosopher won't get you paid and we tend to greatly value money, and the ideas/concepts remain rather obtuse to the layperson. Most people, I'm afraid, do not have the training, discipline of mind, or even willingness to learn philosophy because it will appear to have no practical use to them. I can't see how removing "necessity" from philosophy would change that.

What's the difference between arbitrarily high probability and certainty?

This question briefly piqued my interest but upon pondering the idea, it quickly occurred to me to be a futile question, as I don't see how you could go anywhere with it. I don't see the advantage nor use of a logic that has no way of expressing necessity. Consider the following argument:

Socrates is a man.  
All men are mortal.  
Therefore, Socrates is (necessarily) mortal.

If you were to explain that without necessity, you would get an expression of probability that would be arbitrarily close to necessity, such as "almost certainly" (in Math) such that they would be functionally the same.

Has necessity really harmed science?

More importantly, as a scientist myself, I also don't see how the use of necessity has harmed science at all; on the contrary, I think it has been a profoundly useful guide in separating fact from fiction so as to arrive as close as we can to the truth. Also, "necessity" is not at odds with "possibility"; I don't see a conflict there at all, and find that science is all about both.

The link between philosophy's popular acceptance and necessity

Given the pragmatic and hypothetical tone of the sciences, may its reliance on necessity help explain the difficulty philosophy has in being heard and taken seriously as a cultural form?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that science's reliance on "necessity" has anything to do with philosophy "being taken seriously as a cultural form". To be a philosopher was once a very respectable position to have. The difficulty is that it has almost always been the province of the wealthy — if you were of the working class you more likely had to spend most of your day putting food on the table. To have access to the rich philosophy that came before us, you had to have had the luxury of an education, and even then, the logical mind for it. Philosophy's current position, I would argue, is simply because A) in our modern society being a philosopher won't get you paid and we tend to greatly value money, and B) the ideas/concepts remain rather obtuse to the layperson. Most people, I'm afraid, do not have the training, discipline of mind, or even willingness to learn philosophy because it will appear to have no practical use to them. I can't see how removing "necessity" from philosophy would change that.

1
source | link

What's the difference between arbitrarily high probability and certainty?

This question briefly piqued my interest but upon pondering the idea, it quickly occurred to me to be a futile question, as I don't see how you could go anywhere with it. I don't see the advantage nor use of a logic that has no way of expressing necessity. Consider the following argument:

Socrates is a man.  
All men are mortal.  
Therefore, Socrates is (necessarily) mortal.

If you were to explain that without necessity, you would get an expression of probability that would be arbitrarily close to necessity, such as "almost certainly" (in Math) such that they would be functionally the same.

Has necessity really harmed science?

More importantly, as a scientist myself, I also don't see how the use of necessity has harmed science at all; on the contrary, I think it has been a profoundly useful guide in separating fact from fiction so as to arrive as close as we can to the truth. Also, "necessity" is not at odds with "possibility"; I don't see a conflict there at all, and find that science is all about both.

The link between philosophy's popular acceptance and necessity

Given the pragmatic and hypothetical tone of the sciences, may its reliance on necessity help explain the difficulty philosophy has in being heard and taken seriously as a cultural form?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that science's reliance on "necessity" has anything to do with philosophy "being taken seriously as a cultural form". To be a philosopher was once a very respectable position to have. The difficulty is that it has almost always been the province in the wealthy — if you were of the working class you of course had to spend most of your day putting food on the table. You had to have had the luxury of an education, and even then, the logical mind for it. Philosophy's current position is simply because in our modern society, being a philosopher won't get you paid and we tend to greatly value money, and the ideas/concepts remain rather obtuse to the layperson. Most people, I'm afraid, do not have the training, discipline of mind, or even willingness to learn philosophy because it will appear to have no practical use to them. I can't see how removing "necessity" from philosophy would change that.